Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The Current Transcript for October 4, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Overweight in childhood and adolescence causes some social psychological problems for the children themselves. More stigmatizing. More bullying. Less optimal school performance.

LAURA LYNCH: Cases of obesity are growing in the ranks of our youngest. And it's happening all over the world with worrying implications. That's first up. And then in an hour, another way to look at food.

SOUNDCLIP

Climate change has awakened me to all that I have and what I want other people to have. I want my kids to have what I have. I want their kids- I want strangers halfway around the world to have what I have and there's only one way to do that which is to live a little bit differently.

LL: Author Jonathan Safran Foer wants of all of us to change what we eat as a way to fight the effects of a warming world. Also just over two weeks to go before Canadians cast their ballots, and today we continue our interviews with party leaders, though in this case Justin Trudeau isn't available. Stepping up is Chrystia Freeland. She's here in half an hour. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Childhood Obesity

Guests: Hannah Brinsden, Tom Warshawski

SOUNDCLIP

NEWSCASTER 1: In just four decades since 1975 there has been a tenfold increase in childhood and adolescent obesity.

CHILD VOICE: I love it.

NEWSCASTER 2: Everything in moderation, right? Problem is that's not happening. A new study shows the number of obese children and teens in this country keeps going up.

NEWSCASTER 1: Researchers say the global epidemic is a result of food marketing and policymaking across the globe.

NEWSCASTER 3: The food industry success in targeting children is just one of the reasons. Researchers say the fight against obesity is unacceptably slow.

LL: It's a problem that's been growing for decades. And the new prediction says by 2030 there will be 250 million obese children in the world. That's up from 150 million today. The World Obesity Federation analyzed trends from almost 200 countries to reach that conclusion. Of course it's a health issue but experts are now calling it a children's rights issue as well. Hannah Brinsden is the deputy director of policy at the World Obesity Federation and the co-author of the Atlas of Childhood Obesity. She joins me from London, England. Hello.

HANNAH BRINSDEN: Good morning.

LL: Why are we seeing this alarming global rise in childhood obesity?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So obesity is extremely complex and it has many drivers. So it's very difficult to pinpoint one cause. But we know that there's relentless marketing of food. The globalization of food brands is a really big issue particularly in low and middle income countries where we're actually seeing some of the biggest increases in obesity. And this is particularly worrying because this is not replacing under nutrition but sitting in parallel. We also know that we are seeing more urbanization in countries like this and seeing socioeconomic shifts and all of this is contributing to obesity amongst a number of other factors.

LL: Well what countries then are experiencing the fastest rise in rates of childhood obesity?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So unfortunately some of the biggest rises are in emerging economies such as Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific Islands. So for instance in some Pacific islands as projections of up to 40 percent of children to be living with obesity by 2030. Countries like the Middle East predicted to rise to 20 to 30 percent in some countries. South Africa two fold rise by 2030. So these countries are not necessarily those that we typically associate with obesity but it's where the rise is being seen.

LL: Let's focus in on a couple of these places, South Africa you mentioned, what's happening there that's causing the rise?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So this is a lot to do with the transitions that we're seeing. In countries like South Africa we're seeing an influx of big food brands. So we're seeing more consumption of high calorie low nutrient dense food. And this is exacerbating a number of the problems we're seeing people living in urban areas. And it's really worrying because as I said this is sitting alongside problems of under nutrition, and this is going to have significant economic impacts on countries. It's going to affect health systems because they're just simply not equipped to be dealing with these problems.

LL: You also talk to countries where the childhood obesity rates are low right now but where they could skyrocket. Can you give some examples of that and what puts those countries at risk?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So countries across Africa, Nigeria for instance, we're seeing we're seeing a rise and they're following the patterns that we've seen in countries like in North America, like in Europe. And we've seen what happens there. And we're just really concerned that the same thing is going to happen in countries that simply are not equipped to deal with the consequences of obesity. Obesity increases risk of diabetes. It increases risk of heart disease, of cancer amongst other health concerns like mental health problems, education attainment. So we're just really concerned that countries are not equipped and that quite simply governments are not doing enough to address these problems early on. And we have a huge opportunity in these countries.

LL: Well then that was my next question. How much action are you seeing from governments both in developed and developing countries?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So we're seeing pockets of action but quite frankly we're not seeing nearly enough of what we need. We know that obesity is extremely complex and that means that comprehensive action is required. This means not just looking at food environments and addressing marketing of taxation of which we need more. But it also means making sure that health systems can treat obesity and that we have infrastructure in place to diagnose it early to try and prevent some of the co morbidity such as diabetes and heart disease. It also means looking at the urban environments, promoting active transport to reduce inactivity.

LL: Walking in other words.

HANNAH BRINSDEN: Walking. Just being active not spending days sat at our desks or whatever we're doing. And also engaging people, engaging young people empowering them to have a voice and to exercise their right to health. Because quite frankly at the moment we're not doing enough of that. And at world obesity we're really trying to do a bit more in this area. We've recently launched a website called Healthy voices and we're working in a consortium project with a number of EU countries called Co-Create, where we're seeing that children are angry at the way they're being marketed to the fact they're often excluded from decision making processes. So we're really trying to create a platform to get young people engaged to prioritize to identify what matters to them and then getting them to advocate for those changes to their governments.

LL: You just frame this as a rights issues. You said a right to health. And you've spoken about combating this as a rights issue. Tell me more about that. Why is this a right?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So I think children have a right to health. They have a right to be protected. We know that marketing for instance. It's everywhere. Companies are marketing high fat, high sugar, high salt food to us. And children have a right. In fact all citizens have a right for governments to protect them from the power of these companies. Part of that right is ensuring that there are policies which reduce things like marketing. But it's also about coming back to the point I just made. Children having a voice and having a say in their futures. Because it is their future. It's their present health. But it's also their future health. We know that the risk of obesity often is then seen as adult obesity and we know that maternal obesity for instance can increase the risk of childhood obesity. So it's a really vicious cycle. So we really need to see this as a rights based approach. The Lancet Commission on Obesity which the World Obesity Federation was involved with earlier this year recommended that governments adopt right to wellbeing legislation, which basically would ensure that all policies fulfil government's obligations to protect their citizens and their citizens health.

LL: What does that look like them on the ground when it comes to childhood obesity?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So I think it's protecting the policy process from corporate influence. We know that companies all around the world and particularly in lower middle income countries are lobbying to block policies that we know can help to address childhood obesity. So blocking taxes blocking marketing because it it's not in their interest. The problem is governments need to be thinking about their citizens and their citizens’ health. And that means implementing these policies that protect them.

LL: So that may mean one thing for four more developed countries. But how much ability the poorer countries have to make the kinds of changes you want to see?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: So I think the opportunity that we have in a number of lower middle income countries is that companies are only just starting to build their product portfolios in these countries. So we can try and stop this happening early on. It also means balancing what spent. So we need to be looking at the prevention of childhood obesity. Yes, there is a role and a very important role for treatment, but preventative measures can also slow down the rise that we're seeing. The World Health Organization published a series of recommendations as part of the WHCA Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity, which highlighted a broad range of actions that are needed. And it's this comprehensive approach that is needed in order to ensure that we are protecting the right to health, and ensuring that our citizens are healthy because healthy citizens will result in a prosperous society, people who can work and things like that.

LL: You mentioned earlier that there are pockets where things are being done properly. Can you tell me about those and what they're doing?

HANNAH BRINSDEN: Yes so we're seeing a number of quite so fascinating policies coming out over the last few years. So for instance we're seeing a rise in sugar taxes or soft drink taxes. Mexico and the U.K. we have some very good evidence that these are working in the U.K. the way that the tax was set up has actually triggered significant reformulation of soft drinks. So it's means that there is less sugar in the products that we're seeing and it's actually working better than the reformulation program. We also can see some quite good work at a city level. So Amsterdam, Copenhagen, they're taking quite a comprehensive approach looking at the environment, looking at the different parts of society that children have access to. But this isn't necessarily scaling up or being seen in multiple cities. So I think really what we need is more government to adopt this comprehensive approach and start to think about a package of policies, and not just pick and choose which policies they want. And I recognize that that takes time but this atlas that we've published today shows that childhood obesity is rising in most countries around the world. In some countries where it has stabilized levels are still really high. So we're really worried and we really just need to act because it's our children's current and future health that's at risk.

LL: All right thank you for your time.

HANNAH BRINSDEN: Thank you.

LL: Hanna Brinsden is deputy director of policy at the World Obesity Federation and the co-author of the Atlas of Childhood Obesity. She's in London, England.

SOUNDCLIP

TEACHER: Right now we're just playing a game of hot and cold tag.

CHILD 1: The secret of hot and cold tag is to run as fast as you can so you don't get tagged by the blue noodle.

TEACHER: We just want them to love moving. Love being in a space. Love being around friends and giggling and laughing because everyone remembers how you make them feel. So if they feel great by moving, they'll keep moving.

CHILD 1: I'm the fastest.

CHILD 2: no.

TEACHER: You know. When I see a child that's overweight or struggling I honestly feel it's because they're missing the education piece on on diet and nutrition. And maybe the fact that they don't have enough money to participate in activities outside of school. We try to teach them a lot of activity and games that don't require a lot of equipment just so that they can be doing it in the field by their house, things like that, and inviting friends over to do that. And that's what we're trying to do.

LL: That's Phys ed eacher Tracy Payne Barrett with her gym class at Chancellor Elementary School in Winnipeg. Dr. Tom Warshawski is a pediatrician and Kelowna and chair of the Childhood Obesity Foundation. He's in our Vancouver studio. Hello.

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Good morning Laura. How are you?

LL: Fine. Thanks. How surprised are you by the projections made by the World Obesity federation? 250 million obese children by the year 2030.

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well I'm not surprised at all. They're catching up to where we were probably about 10 years ago. And as I've travelled across the world, even in remote places like the mountains of Bhutan, we see the effects of the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages, consumption of high sugar foods and a growing rate of childhood overweight and obesity.

LL: So let's focus on Canada then, how is Canada doing when it comes to childhood obesity?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well we're one of that group that had alluded to that is stable but still high. So in 1978 roughly 22 percent of children in youth between the ages of two and 17 years were either overweight or obese. By 2004 that had increased dramatically to about 36 percent were overweight or obese but those rates have since stabilized around 33 to 35 percent. So it's good news that it's stable. It's bad news because it's still alarmingly high.

LL: Regionally but where are you seeing the highest numbers of obese children across the country?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: There tends to be an east to west gradient. So the Maritimes have the highest rates and British Columbia has roughly the lowest rate. An anomaly to this is Quebec which has one of the lowest rates of childhood obesity. And it's interesting because it ties into something that Hannah talked about in terms of policy measures. Quebec is the only place in Canada where there are restrictions on the marketing of products to kids that it's all products not just unhealthy foods and beverages. But I don't think it's a coincidence they have lower rates of overweight and obesity.

LL: So within the populations and are there certain groups or communities that are particularly affected?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well, First Nations or indigenous people are being devastated by overweight and obesity. And because of the lifestyle habits learned in childhood and the food habits that they've adopted from the European, as traditional game and foods have disappeared. We're seeing an epidemic of Type 2 diabetes to the extent that for First Nations women they have an 85 percent risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood.

LL: Those are some of the factors. We know that there can be a result of many different factors. What are some of the biggest contributors to childhood obesity in Canada?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: I think it's overwhelmingly diet and I think that a lot of the industrial food processors, Coca-Cola and others, have tried to point the finger at lack of physical activity, but the evidence is overwhelming. It's the diet that we have, a diet that's too high in added sugars, refined grains, not enough vegetables, too much processed foods. That combination really drives overweight and obesity.

LL: So there was a bill before the Senate, just before the federal election that would have restricted advertising junk food to children. Let's go back to the school in Winnipeg and see what kids there think of those kinds of advertisements.

SOUNDCLIP

CHILD 1: When I see junk food ads, I just really want to go to that place and eat it.

CHILD 2: When I see junk food ads I just want to eat junk food.

INTERVIEWER: Do you?

CHILD 2: Yes. Gummies.

CHILD 3: Rockets.

CHILD 1: Any type of candy.

CHILD 4: I like junk foods because ads because I like to go eat them at this store. And my favorite junk food is rockets.

CHILD 5: I like junk foods and because I just want to eat the junk food.

INTERVIEWER: Do you have any restrictions on eating junk food?

CHILD 5: Don't eat too much.

LL: Okay. Dr. Warshawski, first of all what do you make of those kids attraction to the advertising?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well that's great. We know marketing works. The evidence is overwhelming. So we have both the scientific evidence but even more importantly is the evidence that these companies invest hundreds of millions of dollars in marketing. They get real time feedback, they market to kids. They market the parents. It works. They sell more product. Their bottom line is profitability not our waistline. And I think there's that tension between what's best for the public and what's best for the profits of the companies.

LL: I got it then you support the idea of restricting the advertising.

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Wholeheartedly actually, Laura. I was just devastated by the fact that Bill S-228 was grounded and halted in the Senate. This was a landmark piece of legislation which potentially could have showed the Canadian parliamentary system at its best. We had a conservative senator Nancy Greene Raine introducing bipartisan legislation in the Senate, which actually was consistent with the Liberal Party mandate back in 2016. It was passed unanimously by the Senate, went to the House of Commons in 2018. A few friendly amendments were made and it had the overwhelming support of the Liberals, NDP and the Green parties but all the conservative members of parliament voted against it. It went to the Senate, had been passed by the House of Commons, and then it just stalled due to industry lobbying. The independent senators group I think were bamboozled by industry lobbying so they delayed it a little bit. We were able to correct the misconceptions of the independent senators group, but then the Conservatives members began to stall tactic totally surprising us. Because that same group had voted for the bill two years earlier. They were able to stall the bill to an extent that had died on the order paper. And again this is landmark legislation could have protected our kids from the unethical practice of teaching them to eat food which is harmful to them. So I think that the bill has a chance again next government. If a government that is in support of this bill is elected we'd expect them to reintroduce it in the House of Commons, not the Senate.

LL: In the absence of legislation then, what programs have you seen in Canada that have been the most successful in tackling this issue?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well I think that there's a combination what we need is both policy and the personal. At the policy level, the school food and beverage guidelines which almost every single province has introduced has appears to be quite useful, in that provinces that have had those in place the longest have seen a stabilization of overweight and obesity rates in children. And that makes sense because kids spend a lot of time in the school environment. Daily quality physical activity in schools is important. I think that a lot of schools have food to farm type programs so we get the kids eating more vegetables. Those are important. On a policy front, I'm still optimistic we'll get restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages and we've also - at a federal level - been looking at trying to get taxes on sugary drinks which is one of the policies that Hannah alluded to. But I think parents, families, are becoming more aware of the different factors and I believe that they're also adopting healthy lifestyles.

LL: As a pediatrician whose job it is to ensure that children are healthy and happy. How does it feel when you see kids suffering from obesity?

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well it can be heartbreaking sometimes. Some of the children would come into my office - almost always most of my referrals are not for a weight problem they're there for other issues. But when you get them on the stand up on the scale, you measure their weight and their height. I've had children break down in tears because they do not want to stand up on the scale. Obesity is one of the last publicly accepted prejudices and too often in many people's mind they associate overweight or obesity with gluttony or sloth. And that's not the case at all. What happens is we live in an environment which we call obesogenic where it's very hard not to develop an unhealthy weight. They're heavily marketed to eat these things. People are busy. They fall into the trap set to them by industry and they develop these problems. And it's heartbreaking to see these kids suffer through no fault of their own.

LL: All right Dr. Warshawski we will we will leave it there. Perhaps we'll check back with you in the future. Thank you for your time.

TOM WARSHAWSKI: Well thank you, Laura.

LL: Dr. Tom Wasrshawski is a pediatrician in Kelowna. And he's the chair of the Childhood Obesity Foundation. He was in our Vancouver studio. Well next Wednesday night the current we'll be exploring issues of affordability and one of Canada's fastest growing and most diverse communities, Surrey, British Columbia, where they're struggling to pay rent keep the kids fed or put enough away to retire. A lot of Canadians are thinking about which party has the best plan to keep them afloat. I'll be hosting the event Wednesday, October the 9th, from 7 to 9 pm, at the Westminster savings theatre at Simon Fraser University's three campus. We'll hear from residents business leaders and community organizers. And we want to hear from you so come out and join our studio audience. Tickets are free but you do need to register in advance. Visit cbc.ca/thecurrent for more information and we hope to see you there. The CBC News is next. Then:

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: There's lots more to do on the environment. There's lots more to do on fighting climate change. There's lots more to do on indigenous. We recognize there's lots more to do but that's what we're going to do.

LL: The Liberal Party is promising many things in this election campaign. We did ask Justin Trudeau for an interview, he wasn't available. But Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland will join us in about six minutes to talk about the campaign, climate change and affordability. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music:Theme]

Challenge for next government is to make sure no one is left behind: Chrystia Freeland

Guests: Chrystia Freeland

LL: Hello I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

[Music:Theme]

LL: Still to come solving climate change one meat free breakfast at a time. Novelist Jonathan Safran Foer has thought a lot about what he eats and how he travels for that matter. He'll join me in half an hour. But first the campaign through a liberal lens.

[Music: Theme]

LL: During this federal election campaign we requested interviews with the leaders of all of the major parties. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was not available but I am joined by Chrystia Freeland the Liberal candidate for university Rosedale. She served as Minister of Foreign Affairs in the last Parliament and she's here with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Great to be with you, Laura.

LL: Just over two weeks away from the election the Liberals are still neck and neck in the polls with the conservatives. Why isn't your party resonating more with voters?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well Laura what I can speak to is my own experience on the campaign trail and I'm lucky to be in my riding right now. Well actually not physically in my writing at this moment but today I have been and I have been for the past couple of days, but I have been campaigning supporting our candidates in B.C., in Quebec, in southwestern Ontario. And what I have been experiencing talking to people is that we are resonating. I think that Canadians are thinking very hard about this election which I respect and admire. But the pitch I make to Canadians is that our government believes in investing in Canadians, in investing in families, in investing in students, in investing in seniors, in investing in innovation and investing in infrastructure. And we have some real results to talk about with more than 1 million jobs created three point seven percent GDP. And there is more to do. So that's what I say. I, in my personal experience, it is resonating and one other thing I do want to say-

LL: But it's not being reflected in the numbers.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: .. About Canadians which I really like and people who aren't politicians won't notice. And that is I think we can congratulate ourselves as a country on the tone of the discourse. People are really nice and listen even when they're not going to vote for you. And I did an all candidates meeting, one of the 100 debates on the environment last night. A woman came to me afterwards and said, I disagree with a lot of stuff your party stands for but I know you worked hard for Canada and I respect that. That is good that we have a culture where people do that.

LL: Address this for me though it is not being reflected in the numbers.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Truly Laura, I do not watch the polls. That is a true fact. What I am focussed on is talking to Canadians about our record in office and talking to Canadians about what we think we need to do for another four years.

LL: You were just out in Vancouver as you said.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: That's true.

LL: There is a lot of uncertainty people are feeling worried even though the economy is doing well. In Vancouver, let's just talk about housing there. That's a big issue for a lot of people in a lot of big cities. But in Vancouver for example there's new figures out saying that minimum wage workers in Vancouver would need to make 35 dollars an hour plus to be able to afford a two bedroom apartment, or at minimum wage would have to work 112 hours a week. This is out of reach for people. What can your party do about that?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I think housing affordability is a huge issue and you're right particularly in Vancouver, also here in Toronto, people in Victoria are concerned, Montreal is starting to be an issue. And that's why housing affordability is a priority for us.

LL: What are you going to do about it?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: What do we do about it? Well that's why we have a national housing strategy we're going to be investing 52 billion dollars in housing and housing affordability. That will be investments in particularly affordable housing. We're also going to make it easier for people to take that crucial step for young people, young families to buy their first house. As Canadians know getting onto the housing ladder can be the hardest thing. And we're going to make that easier. And we're going to impose a 1 percent surtax on homes owned by non-Canadians who aren't in Canada which are vacant. Because at a time when as you say it's hard for people to afford housing, it's really not acceptable for places to be empty.

LL: Okay, but there are still are people who - and even people have spoken to the prime minister saying that's not going to help them that they're in a position where they're single and any programs are not really aimed at helping them being able to rent or being able to buy. And I just want to reference something that you said in an interview out in Vancouver with the Daily Hive. You were talking about liberal democracies and you said that the way to keep Canada from becoming sort of a poor liberal democracy was to keep on investing in middle class and don't let the country have that group of people exist who feel hopeless and left behind. The middle class gets hollowed out if there's a significant group of people who feel disenfranchised, dispossessed, even cut off from how the country is being run. Don't you think that's already happening here in Canada that they're people who do feel that way?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Oh well Laura I'm actually really glad you read that interview because that is kind of at the core of what I see as the challenge. The challenge is to work hard to avoid having a group of people who feel left behind for the reasons that you started to refer to there, which is when that happens, first of all, it's just terrible. It's wrong. But we are seeing in too many countries where you have a group of people in the country who are left behind, that that creates an opportunity for irresponsible politicians to whip up a sort of angry nativist sentiment and to say to those people you know what is wrong?

LL: Is that happening here?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I think that Canada today is the world's strongest liberal democracy.

LL: So there's no problem. Nobody's hailing that enfranchised.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: As I said in that interview which I know you read because you read the whole thing and I'm happy to lay out the argument if you- I'm happy to lay it argument. But look my core view is we are absolutely not immune to the strains and stresses and dangerous divisive politics we are seeing in other liberal democracies. So far as a country we are doing tremendously well. We are the strongest liberal democracy in the world. I don't claim that as an accomplishment of our government, I claim that as an accomplishment of Canadians I think the most urgent thing for our government to do, for any government to do, is to continue to invest in Canadians, to avoid having that group of people who are left behind. And that is the thinking behind the core of what we did in government for the past four years; Canada Child Benefit-

LL: Then why are people feeling so worried?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Because Laura it is a huge problem, because Laura you know the the shape of the 21st century economy in Western industrialized countries is difficult. It leans towards inequality. You know I really believe that the technology revolution innately creates these winner take all cycles. And the challenge for Canada, the challenge for any liberal democracy, is to simultaneously invest in your people so in this world where there is this winner take all technology revolution pushing forward, that you are not letting a group of people in your country be left behind. And at the same time you are investing in science and innovation so that your country, as a country, is able to be at the cutting edge of innovation. And that is the other part of the strategy.

[Cross talking]

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Ten billion dollars in basic science is essential.

LL: I wish I got a whole half an hour with you but I've only got 15 minutes.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I would talk to you for two hours. It's complicated.

LL: I want to talk about the campaign in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois fortunes again are rising according to what we're seeing in public opinion surveys. Your leader won't say whether he'll challenge the secularism law in court. The BQ wants the federal parties to butt out. So what do you think is the right approach here?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I think the right approach is exactly the one that the Prime Minister has outlined. One of the strongest convictions of the prime minister, and one of the things that makes me the most proud to serve in his government, is his clarity on the fact that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. And his very strong conviction that our government, our party, is the party of the charter. He's also been very clear on where our government stands and he has also said that this is now before the courts. Quebeckers have brought it before the courts and that is great. And that he and our government is following this closely and he is keeping all options open.

LL: Why doesn't he intervene now? He can.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: The prime minister has been really clear and has taken a strong position in support of the rights of Canadians.

LL: What would you do given that the Bloc were leader Yves France Blanchet is asking Quebeqers to vote for someone 'qui vous ressemblent', someone like you? What was your reaction to that kind of statement?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: No that's going to be for core backers to consider as they go to the polls. My own view is one of the remarkable things about Canada is there is no one way that a Canadian looks or is or speaks, and we're here in Toronto a city where half of the people are born outside Canada. That is evident on the streets of the country. But you know what. It's been the case for a long time. When peer Trudeau announced, first announced, the policy, the official policy on multiculturalism. He did that in Winnipeg in 1972 at the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. And one of the things that he said is there is no such thing as one average quintessential archetypal Canadian. I think that's core to who we are and I think it's one of the remarkable things about our country.

LL: Already we're running out of time. I've got some other things to ask you about. Climate change, another very important issue for people your part. He's proposing a 30 percent cut in climate changing emissions by 2030, reaching net zero in 2050. So far you're well short of the 2030 Mark. So how are you going to make up for the shortfall?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Okay well it's not 2030 yet. And what I want to say on climate change- I'd like to start with two things. Our government has taken the single strongest step towards fighting climate change that any Canadian government has taken, and that has been to introduce a price on pollution across the whole country.

LL: You also bought a pipeline.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: That it's not sufficient, a price on pollution across the whole country. But it is an absolutely necessary condition for doing anything else. And Canadians have seen that that has not been an easy or straightforward thing. There has been tremendous pushback in parts of the country.

LL: But you also bought a pipeline.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Also I give the Prime Minister and Minister McKenna a huge amount of credit for going ahead and doing that.

LL: So how do you balance that off against buying a pipeline. Do they cancel each other out in your mind?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Let me just say one other thing on the climate change front, okay, because this to me is one of the most exciting parts of our platform, and that is the commitment to plant two billion trees. Trees are the best technology for capturing carbon. They're technology that has already been invented. Canada has a huge amount of space and this can be a contribution to the whole world.

LL: Can you address the pipeline, though, in this?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I am very happy to talk about that. The decision to buy the pipeline was, I think, one of the hardest for our government. It was absolutely the right thing to do. Canada - and I can talk about a few reasons why. The starting point for me and the starting point for all of our policies in this space are that we can't put the economy and the environment in opposition to each other. What we have to do is find a balanced approach that allows us to fight climate change and grow the economy at the same time. The reality is that fossil fuels are part of the Canadian economy today and they're part of the world economy today. I happen to have rode my bike to this interview. I don't know how you got here Laura. I don't own a car because I live in central Toronto. I don't need a car. But my dad lives in northern Alberta and he couldn't be a farmer there without driving a pickup. So fossil fuels are part of the economy. We need to transition. But given that fossil fuels are pioneering economy there is no reason why Canadian fossil fuels shouldn't be part of it.

LL: I am running out of time. I know it's frustrating part of you it's frustrating to me too but there's one more thing I want to ask you about.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Go for it.

LL: After pictures surfaced of Mr. Trudeau in blackface. CBC Radio's The House interviewed Omar Aziz who is a former employee in your office and I want you to listen to what he said.

SOUNDCLIP

The India trip really triggered me in a literal way. Look I got so upset by the costumes. It would have been my file if I was still there. I was lamenting the fact that you know I basically had to leave my dream job because of racist prejudices that went unacknowledged.

LL: Okay. He was talking about racist prejudices that went unacknowledged and that's what forced him to leave his job. How do you respond to him saying that there are racist prejudices in your government?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well. You know I think the reality is there is racist prejudice everywhere in Canada. And I think that all of us to some extent are- you know racism is built into how our society works. I think we all have an obligation to work as hard as we can to fight that.

LL: So how do you do that? How do you reassure racialized Canadians that they aren't second class citizens?

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: Well I think you start actually by listening to them. And you know neither you, nor I, is a person of colour. And I think the starting point is actually to say to people of colour tell us what you are experiencing, and tell us what we need to do together to create - starting off - a workplace, a university, a country where all Canadians are treated equally and all Canadians have the same shot. But I do 100 percent acknowledge that we are not there yet. We have a lot of work to do all of us.

LL: All right. That's all of our time. But if you want to come back again, we'll have you.

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: I'm sorry. Okay. I do want to say one thing, Laura. I am very glad you raised the issue of liberal democracy. And let's maintain our own excellent liberal democracy by investing in Canadians.

LL: Thank you very much. Chrystia Freeland. Chrystia Freeland is the Liberal candidate for university Rosedale. She was in our Toronto studio. You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM. I'm Laura Lynch.

[Music]

Women in politics

Guests: Valerie Ouellet

SOUNDCLIP

I think you'll see that women work differently together and that we may have also different priorities and that there will be a different tone to this assembly than there was to previous assembly.

LL: It was a big victory for female candidates this week in the Northwest Territories nine of 19 MLAs elected to the end WTA Legislative Assembly are women. A proportional record for female legislators in a Canadian jurisdiction. It's a record that's not likely to be broken in the federal election. Last month CBC Radio Canada analyzed the numbers and here to tell us more about it is. Valerie Ouellet. Hi Valerie.

VALERIE OUELLET: Hello. .

LL: So remind us what you found in the initial investigation.

VALERIE OUELLET: Well we crunched the numbers for the past decade so the past three general federal elections, and the first surprising result we got was that not one political party had ever recruited 50 percent or more women nominees. And then we found another trend. The women who ran for office were elected less often than men. 18 percent of all women were elected, versus 26 percent of all men. And then we looked at where all these candidates were running, meaning which writings. And we found that there are a lot more women than men who end up running in ridings that are harder to win. 79 percent of all candidates who run in stronghold ridings are safe ridings are men versus 21 percent of women. That's four times more men running in ridings that are easier to win.

LL: Okay so now that all the candidates are confirmed you'd looked at the data again. What did you find?

VALERIE OUELLET: Elections Canada just published a final list of confirmed candidates this week. There are over 2100 candidates running everywhere in Canada for this 2019 election. And using that list and historical results from before we crunched the numbers again and we found that there are 10 percent more women running across the board this election. So the gap between genders is now smaller. 42 percent of all candidates are women versus 58 percent of men. That's when we consider all parties big and small in every riding in the country.

LL: Okay so let's break it down party by party if you can. How does each party fare?

VALERIE OUELLET: Well the NDP is a hair's breadth away from parity, 49 percent of all their candidates are women. Next come the Greens are very close, 47 percent of all their candidates are women. The Bloc Quebecois has 45 percent of nominees who are women and then the Liberals have 39 percent and the Conservatives have 32 percent of women.

LL: And can you compare the parties to the last election?

VALERIE OUELLET: We sure can. It's a lot of numbers. But here's the bottom line. The Bloc Quebecois and the Conservative Party have the biggest increase. Andrew Scheer's party has gone from 20 percent of women last election so that's one in five women roughly to 32 percent this election. So that's one in five to a third of women, a third of their candidates running are not women. Other parties did recruit more women but in smaller percentages. But on the other hand we also have to point out that they had bigger numbers to begin with.

LL: Okay so what are the parties saying about these findings?

VALERIE OUELLET: Well when we kicked off this project a month ago we asked every party for their thoughts on women's representation, and several of them even shared with us our goals for this elections are targets in terms of percentages. The Liberals for example told us they changed their nomination rules since 2015. The riding associations now have to show that they really looked for women and diverse candidates before a nomination can be rubber stamped by a party leader. And at the time when we spoke with them they pointed out that 50 percent of their new candidates are women. The NDP told us that this year they would reach parity and they got so close. But that's another party that has specific rules in its nomination process for recruiting women and diversity. And then when we last spoke with the conservatives they were done recruiting older candidates so they were capable of releasing their numbers. And at the time they said that, although they recruited a historic high for the party, their goal is really to recruit the best possible candidate for every riding.

LL: Okay so representation is one thing, but are female candidates running where they can actually win an election?

VALERIE OUELLET: Well it's interesting because although they're definitely more women running than ever we are still seeing the same pattern as I presented before, significantly more men in winnable writings. Only 23 percent of all the candidates in stronghold ridings are safe riding this election are women. And when we did the same analysis with the past election results we found 21 percent. So that number has barely moved. I took these new numbers back to the political scientist who helped us develop this project. Melanie Thomas is an associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Here was her reaction to these new numbers.

SOUNDCLIP

When you determine the competitive location of these women very little is changing. And so it looks like parties are doing better at finding women to be candidates and then turning around and making just as many of them sacrificial lambs. And so we're not going to see much change, I don't think, in the number of women who were actually elected because most of them are the same proportion of them are running in unwinnable seats as what we've seen in the past.

VALERIE OUELLET: Melanie Thomas says overall this is great progress but no parties have to keep it up. And even if a party reaches parity, she says keeping those numbers up demands consistent work. She advocates for long term changes like including more women in local party leadership, calling the nomination process earlier, giving the parties more time to look for candidates. It's unclear how much these numbers have changed because of the influence of the party leaders or due to systemic changes to the nomination and recruitment process.

LL: So we've just got a little a couple of weeks left in the campaign. What would she what should we be looking for?

VALERIE OUELLET: Well Melanie Thomas says she'll be looking out for several things. First, how many women will actually be elected for the five biggest parties. Second, where these women will be elected. And she also wants to look at the gap between the percentage of women and men who are elected for each party. She says the bigger that gap the more severe the sacrificial lamb problem is for a party.

LL: And you'll be back to tell us about all of this after the election is over and the votes are counted?

VALERIE OUELLET: Of course.

LL: Thank you.

VALERIE OUELLET: Thank you.

LL: Valerie Ouellet is a senior data journalist with the CBC News Investigative Unit. She was in our Toronto studio. Now coming up in our next half hour:

SOUNDCLIP

America is waiting for China and India and Brazil to do something, and citizens are often waiting for their government or corporations to do something. And we're all going to you know reach our collective demise not doing anything together, or we can all start to do something.

LL: Author Jonathan Safran Foer 'Do Something' about climate change started partly with writing a list. A list of things he wants to do less of flying, taking cabs, eating red meat. He joins me in a couple of minutes to talk about why saving the planet begins at breakfast. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

Why this author made a personal, 4-point plan to fight climate change (and you can too)

Guest: Jonathan Safran Foer

LL: I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: So I woke up around 6:45 and I've two kids, 13 and 10, and I always make them breakfast. I made avocado toast for myself. For them, they had toast with peanut butter. They had some fruit, some bananas and blueberries and raspberries and some cereal.

LL: Well how does that sound healthy.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: And I had a coffee as well. I buried the lead. Coffee. That's what I had for breakfast.

LL: That's typically about my breakfast, too.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Yes.

LL: If you're wondering why Jonathan Safran Foer is talking about what he's eaten today is because he's been thinking a lot about his food choices lately. He's the author of the books, Everything is Illuminated, and Eating Animals. His new book is called We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast. Hello.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Hello.

LL: So is what you eat today for breakfast different than what you might have chosen years ago?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: For sure. Yes. In the past I would have had eggs very often. Cheese. I used a ton of cheese. I've been an on and off vegetarian since I was a kid, sometimes quite on sometimes quite off. And in the periods when I wasn't eating meat cheese would often sort of substitute to take the place of meat. So now I don't eat animal products for breakfast and lunch and at dinner I'm a vegetarian.

LL: Okay so why did you change your eating habits?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: I changed because, like most people, and I assume like probably every listener to this, I believe in science and the science about climate change is very clear. 97 percent of climate scientists agree that the planet's warming because of human activity and we know what the activities are. There are four activities that matter more than all others which are flying, driving, over populating the world and eating animal products. According to the IPCC - which is the kind of the gold standard for climate science these days and the scientific arm of the United Nations - even if we were to do everything that we're talking about and with regard to fossil fuels, we would still have no hope of meeting the goals of the Paris climate accords. If we don't eat a lot less meat and dairy doesn't mean that we all have to stop flying tomorrow, stop driving tomorrow, stop having kids and become vegans. It just means we need to do those things with a lot more moderation than we've been used to.

LL: And when did you come to this realization and make the change in your diet?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: So there's you know realization is a slippery term. Like a lot of things I've realized intellectually for a long time but I haven't realized in my heart or practically. So I've known about the science of climate change for years, I guess like most people and I've even known about the relationship between my food choices and climate change for at least three or four or five years. But it's hard to- sometimes it's hard to act on what we know. And I think climate change is an area in which it's especially hard maybe harder than all other areas of life to act on what we know, because it feels kind of far away. Either like it's happening halfway around the planet or like it will happen in the future. It feels like the effects are far away in Bangladesh or 50 years from now. And the causes are far away too, with the fossil fuel industry and like what are we supposed to do as individuals. So I started to learn more specifically about what it was that I was doing in my own life that had an impact, both in terms of real world impact. Like the less I do this activity the less greenhouse gas emissions that are. But if we're being honest that's fairly negligible because we're only individuals. But our a lot of our individual impacts aren't really individual because we eat in communities, families, local communities. We eat as countries. We eat as Earthlings and the choices that we make influence each other and influence the system, influence corporations and influence, hopefully, legislation.

LL: And for you that tipping point came just a few years ago when you decided I have to act on this now.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: So it wasn't a tipping point. I don't think that, in my experience, caring about climate change is a funny thing to even say as if there were an alternative but apparently there is because we can care in our minds but not carrying our actions. For me carrying in my actions wasn't an event, it's a process. So I don't feel like I've resolved it yet. It's in there I'm very much working on and I'm always open to hearing how other people approach and hearing other people's advice. I did an incredibly moving experience about two weeks ago, where I did a reading from this book, We're the Weather, and at the end there was a signing as usually happens and a young couple came up to me and put the book in front of me. Opened it to the title page which is usually empty and it was filled with their handwriting. And I said What's this. And they said we're getting married in two months and we decided tonight that we really need to have a plan because we don't have a plan for how we're going to live our lives in a way that's sensitive to, conscious of, what's happening in this planetary crisis. We'll probably just do what we've always done before. And their plan which they'd written out was: eat vegetarian unless served meat at a friend's house, eat vegan two days a week, have no more than two kids and drive no more than a thousand miles in the year. And then instead of having me just sign it, they'd written a line that said 'witness'. And they want me to sign it. And I find it very touching and very charming. You know to get an insight into who they are and what their hopes are what their limitations are. I also find it really shaming because I realized, only then. I'd written this book. It's been two years researching and writing this book. I was on tour giving talks. I was the guy on stage. I realized only when they showed me their plan that I didn't have a plan and it really shook me. It upset me and it reminded me that this is a process not an event and that there's so much to learn and so many new steps to take. And I went home to my hotel room that night I wrote out my plan.

LL: You've got a plan now.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: I carry it around with me. It's actually right here. This is the hotel stationery at the Fairmont Hotel when I went home. I can read it to you.

LL: Go ahead.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Eat vegan for breakfast and lunch. Vegetarian for dinner. No flying for vacations in 2020. Limit cab rides to three a week. I live in New York, I should say. And devote one full day a week to volunteering for 350 [unintelligible] in The New York City public school climate awareness and I think it's a profound thing to codify a plan. You know it's one thing to say I'm going to try to fly less next year because I know it matters, or I'm going to try to drive less. Having to confront, having to put it into words and days, it gets very hard thing to do because you have to witness the limitations of your own ambitiousness. You know I didn't say I'm not going to fly. I didn't say I'm not going to take cabs. I tried to be honest about what it felt like my limits are. And it risks feeling hypocritical and it risks accusations of hypocrisy if I came on and talked to you right now and said I'm going to fly a lot less next year. Nobody listening to this would say 'Oh come on. That's all you can do?' But instead I said no flying for vacations which of course-

LL: Sounds like a real commitment.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Not just a real common but also leaves a gaping hole for work. You know knowing full well like what the carbon implications are. But I think even more powerful are as powerful as writing a plan of sharing it with people and talking about it and having witnesses. And after I wrote this when I went home I shared with my kids and talked to them about why I wanted to do these things. That they might see me making some different choices and they also might see me falling short of my plan, which I think is inevitable or at least I'm assuming it's inevitable for me. I've already fallen short of my plan but I would rather fall short than do nothing at all.

LL: I have to ask you what did you fall short on?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: I think I've fallen short on every single thing mentioned here. I've certainly had breakfasts and lunches when I haven't eaten vegan when I've been travelling. And I find certain social situations really difficult. You know if somebody is prepared something for you I find it very hard to say no to- I actually don't know that I want to be somebody who says no in those situations or at least I can imagine situations where there's a lot to balance. I haven't yet flown on vacation I've certainly taken more than three cab rides a week once or twice. And as for volunteering it's something I'm only getting started with. But we were in the habit of measuring our distance from perfection. Some perfection that we're not going to attain anyway rather than measuring our distance from doing nothing. I know so many people and I have been one of them and I sadly even still am one of them who, despite all that we know and despite the extent that we care, we just don't do anything. You know we're waiting for somebody else. America is waiting for China and India and Brazil to do something, and citizens are often waiting for their government or corporations to do something. And we're not going to reach our collective demise not doing anything together or we can all start to do something.

LL: Well let's get into more about the book says because you're talking about eating animal products and having that impact on climate change. How does it affect climate change, eating animal products?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: So according to the United Nations animal agriculture is one of the top two or three causes of every significant environmental problem on the planet, locally and globally. Air pollution, water pollution, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, erosion of topsoil and greenhouse gas emissions. It's very very hard to quantify with precision the volume of greenhouse gas emissions produced by animal agriculture because the systems are extremely complex and interrelated, and because it depends on what assumptions you make, what you're including or not including. So like a simple - it's going to sound silly - but a simple example is the breathing of cows. Cows breathe an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. Do you include that as a greenhouse gas emission? Or do you say no cows are just part of the natural world? Basically do you consider cows part of the natural world where their breathing is not additive? Or do you think of them more like cars, that we put onto the planet and they're breathing more like the fumes from the tailpipe of a car? In any case the very low estimate is about 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture. The very high estimate is 51 percent. There are good reasons to parse the calculations. There are also good reasons to say it doesn't matter. It's missing the point. The point is what the IPCC said which is we cannot solve the climate crisis without eating dramatically less meat. So the most comprehensive analysis of the relationship between animal agriculture and climate change was published at the end of last year. And what the authors, having studied food systems around the world, found that people who live in undernourished parts of the world, certain undernourished parts of the world, can afford to eat a little more meat and a little more dairy. People who live in the United States, Europe, the UK, Canada have to reduce their meat consumption by 90 percent and their dairy consumption by 60 percent in order to avoid what they called catastrophic irreversible climate catastrophe.

LL: You gave us your list and you talked about how you're eating now. Do you ever still crave meat?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: I crave meat constantly. Yes. I've been a vegetarian since I was nine on and off so I've had years when I was eating meat I - you know speaking of like an event and a process - I wish that becoming a vegetarian were an event. I wish I could've just set it once and that's that and then it's. I never have to do that again. In fact it's been a process for me and I find, for whatever reason, that I don't crave it less than I did before. If anything I might crave it more, maybe just cause I think about it as much as I do. You know having written now two books that touch on the subject. No, if we were eating a meal right now and you had a steak and I had my meal, I'd probably wish i were eating your meal. You know if I were a lion then I would jump across the desk and grab your meal because my ethical obligations would end with my craving. But I'm not a lion I'm a human being and humans are capable of saying I want that but I'm not going to have that because there's something that I want more. And we do that hundreds of times every single day. It's just they're invisible to us because we're so used to them. There are norms. And I think that's actually one of the values of having a plan is maybe it's a way to relieve some of the pressure of having to choose every time and just make it a norm. Just I'm the person who doesn't eat that at breakfast and lunch. I'm not going to require myself to summon some kind of feelings every time for breakfast lunch, or to have a kind of intellectual reminder of this contract that I've made with myself or with the planet or with the future. No I'm just somebody who doesn't eat it at breakfast and lunch.

LL: And I'm not saying is that a virtuousness. But you'd never find a steak on my platge. I just prefer not to eat it. I eat fish instead.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Well you're lucky because I would prefer that.

LL: I mean of course there are many who eat meat, and I want to play you some tape of the former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka speaking at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference.

SOUNDCLIP

[Applause]

They want to take your pick up truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved. You are on the front lines of the war against communism coming back to America under the guise of democratic socialism.

LL: All right. Jonathan Safran Foer do you want to take away Sebastian Gorka's hamburgers?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: I don't even want to talk about them. I mean he's a sentient haemorrhoid. He is. He has nothing useful to say and if we were to spend 30 seconds talking about him we would be wasting 30 seconds. The one thing I will say is he's in the extreme minority in having that opinion. Ninety one percent of Americans acknowledge the science of climate change. Twice as many Americans believe in the existence of Bigfoot, you know Bigfoot is over here in Canada?

LL: Oh yes.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Yes. Twice as many Americans believe in the existence of Bigfoot as deny the existence of climate change. So he is in that extraordinarily small fringe group of,, I would say wilfully ignorant people. Which is different than simply being ignorant. Being ignorant is something that we can feel sorry for. Being wilfully ignorant to something that can only really be dismissed.

LL: But what about within the Republican Party?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: The majority of Republicans polled - I'm not talking about elected officials - the majority of Republicans polled have said they wish the United States remained in the Paris climate accords. This is not a political issue. It's really not. Conservatives do not care about the environment less than liberals. They don't love their kids and grandkids less than liberals. They have different ideas about how to grapple with climate change but a lot of those ideas are fuelled by I think mistakes liberals have made - And by the way I'm a liberal - but mistakes liberals have made in turning climate change into a kind of zero sum game where there are winners and losers where people are. You know we have our own version of the rhetoric that you just heard.

LL: But that isn't the problem and the fact that the elected Republicans including President Trump of course are the ones who are saying that climate change is a hoax? They're the ones in positions of power.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Yes and no. So if Hillary had been president - and I campaigned for Hillary I knocked on doors for Hillary and I sure voted for Hillary - The U.S. would have remained in the Paris climate accords and, like Canada and like every country in Europe, we wouldn't have met the goals of the Paris climate accords. And there can be a kind of very dangerous complacency in saying the right things without doing the right things. I think America is a more environmentally conscious country today than it would have been if Hillary had been elected. Trump is Greta Thunberg's only rival as the most important environmentalist on the planet. He just doesn't mean to be. His ignorance has forced a kind of wisdom. His total apathy has forced a kind of action. I don't believe there be millions of people on the streets right now if it weren't for him. You know it may be the only good thing he does. But it may also be the case that things had to get this bad, in order to stimulate a real response, not just a sentimental response which we've had for a long time. You know everybody has been wearing the right T-shirts for a long time and everybody's been making the right posters and attending the right marches, but people being willing to do what needs to be done.

LL: You talked in the book about the Second World War. You make reference to it several times throughout the book. Why was it that during the Second World War people were willing to make those individual sacrifices but when it comes to climate change they aren't apparently not willing?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: So I think there's two reasons. One is the government helped. The government had ad campaigns that were stressing the importance of the involvement of individuals or home front efforts. Roosevelt gave some beautiful speeches on the subject one of which I quote at length in this book. The other reason is we knew who the villain was. You know we could point at somebody and he's not only - well I mean the Nazis were the villain but Hitler in particular was an iconic villain. You know he had his moustache. He had his arm salute. He had his way of marching. He had his way of speaking. We could focus our stew of emotions on him and say this is what we need to defeat. The problem with climate change, one of the problems of climate change, is it's also a war but it's a war that we're fighting against ourselves. Nobody else is going to destroy the planet except for us and nobody else is going to save the planet except for us. And the confrontation with our own lifestyles and habits and cravings, so many of which are good. If all it took to solve climate change was to stop punching ourselves in the face we would have solved it already. The problem is the things we have to do less of are good things. Like I love flying. I love seeing other parts of the world and having my respective expanded. I love showing my kids how other people live how narrow our own way of seeing things is. It's not only pleasurable, it feels like an ethical good. I love my kids. I've loved having two kids. You know the notion of controlling population is absolutely indisputably necessary. That doesn't make it easy to think about. And meat for most people is delicious. And for most people it stimulates wonderful memories, you know, of like meals had with parents and grandparents it makes them feel connected to their cultures, into their pasts where they come from. Those are really powerful things. It's harder to give those up than it is to want to kill a Nazi.

LL: You're Jewish. Next week is Yom Kippur the Day of Atonement. What kind of atonement do we need to make for what's happening to the planet?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Well that's a really beautiful question. I think we need not rhetorical atonement but sometimes the best way to apologize to somebody is to show how you're different, that's because the words of an apology can feel empty. When it comes to climate change. You know I don't know about you but for me the words are feeling awfully empty these days. I think the marches are wonderful. I attended a march. My kids attended a march. I think everybody should attend the marches because they do sort of nudge the conversation forward. But there's also a risk that the energy that was there on Friday is gone on Saturday. And even worse, that marching feels like an action rather than a call to action. To say someone has to do something is not to do something. So I think that the most profound kind of atonement wouldn't be beating our chests and saying look what we've done to this planet. It would be saying tomorrow look at what we're going to do.

LL: Atone that way. Toward the end of the book, it's very moving, you start to list off the things that wouldn't you wouldn't be able to do anymore if the planet stopped existing. And it isn't hard to contemplate, but you list these small intimate things that you'd like to do with your children. And it really struck me. I hadn't thought about things that way before. And because of your children, I wonder what goes through your mind when you think of them growing up with the impact of climate change?

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Well you know I did write the book as- I had a lot of different identities when I wrote the book. I had a Jewish identity as you alluded to. I have the identity as a father. Certainly an identity as a writer. You know I was aware of the fact that I was sharing ideas with people and that hopefully I would be in exactly the position we are now in, having the ability to expand this conversation across however many people are listening. And I had the identity as an American which is not the easiest identity to have when it comes to climate change, because of our radically disproportionate contribution to this problem. I don't think it required- I mean I'm sure it does not require having kids to care about this problem, to care about the future. I don't believe that parents care more than people who aren't parents. But I probably care a little differently because I'm a parent it's my way into caring. It's one of my ways in. You know I tell you a story I had a friend who was with his mother when she received a cancer diagnosis and they just weren't expecting it. And she was in for a scan I think for a headache or something. And as one of these things that you see on TV like doctor comes in, he says I've got some very bad news you have two months to live. And his mother said why me? And then she said why have I been so lucky? Or have I had such a great life? And sometimes with climate change it's tempting to think about our own future martyrdom or the sacrifices we're going to have to make. There is another way of looking at it which is, God, we've been so lucky to have all of these things that we enjoy. Do we have to give up some foods? Yes. But man oh man we have a lot of other foods that we can eat. We have to fly less? Yes. But first of all my grandparents could never have imagined getting on a plane at all. Secondly, I can take the train to literally hundreds of amazingly beautiful places from where I live. We walk down the street. All of these things that are invisible to us like the pleasure of walking down the street on a beautiful day, or a breeze. You know moving to the leaves of a tree. Biodiversity; you know being able to see 20 different kinds of bird from my window. Not to mention more matter of fact stuff, like not starving, like not having climate related diseases, like having coastal cities that are still inhabitable. The really big stuff. I think what fuels me actually is not panic, not a kind of despondency but gratitude. Like climate change has awakened me to all that I have and what I want other people to have. I want my kids to have what I have. You know I want their kids, I want strangers halfway around the world, to have what I have. And there's only one way to do that which is to live a little bit differently. We don't have to invert our identities. Meat eaters don't have to become vegans. Travellers don't have to become people who only walk everywhere. We don't have to have our lights off all day and all night. But we just do a lot less of some of the things that we've gotten quite used to. And that's the price we pay. And if that's the deal, that we've to do less of that to get this then, it's the best deal that's ever been offered to anybody in human history.

LL: That seems like a good place to end. Thank you for a really thoughtful conversation.

JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER: Thank you I appreciate it.

LL: Jonathan Safran Foer his new book is We are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast. He was in our Toronto studio. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for q. Antoni Porowski the Queer Eye co-host. We'll talk to Tom Power about his newly published first cookbook, Antoni in the Kitchen. And this just in CBC Listen is the new totally free app that lets you discover the very best in Canadian audio from CBC Radio, CBC podcasts and CBC Music. Now we just heard about how climate change actually makes Jonathan Safran Foer grateful. It makes him more aware of all the amazing things in his life and it inspires him to take action so others can enjoy the same privileges. Let's end on that theme today. Here's British singer songwriter Rita Ora with her song Grateful. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song: Grateful by Rita Ora]

Friday October 4, 2019 Full Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode